God cannot be both all knowing and all powerful

[-V-]

Well, I will give you an A for effort, but it is still an F for failing to stay consistent and coherent with the definitions of your own god while trying to judge the Most High God.

And we know because you say so, Your Worshipfulness.

Because, your god is not a "version" of omnipotent; there are no "versions" of absolutes. You are desperately trying to make the god you believe in as Omnipotent as the Most High God without actually admitting the fullness of the power thereof.

No, I'm using a valid definition of "omnipotence" that doesn't make God absurd and imaginary as your definitions does, Your Excellency.

If that works for you and your god, then that is your relationship with that entity. But, as you have said several times (and even tried to shamelessly demerit my God so that He is at the same level as yours who you think is the god,) your god is lacking in power - not omnipotent.

My God is omnipotent. YOU don't own the definition, you don't get to unilaterally decide that the definitions you don't like suddenly don't exist, Your Embiggenedness.

Just accept that about your god; don't try to marginalize the Most High because your God lacks compared to Him.

Yes, I accept my God is omnipotent and lacks your God's qualities of being imaginary and absurd, Your Spectacularness.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

And we know because you say so, Your Worshipfulness.


No, I'm using a valid definition of "omnipotence" that doesn't make God absurd and imaginary as your definitions does, Your Excellency.


My God is omnipotent. YOU don't own the definition, you don't get to unilaterally decide that the definitions you don't like suddenly don't exist, Your Embiggenedness.


Yes, I accept my God is omnipotent and lacks your God's qualities of being imaginary and absurd, Your Spectacularness.

Heh, ok.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

As I said, the LATIN (not English) directly means "all powerful." Omni means all, and potent means power. Very simple.

The etymology of a word doesn't dictate its meaning.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

The etymology of a word doesn't dictate its meaning.

No, it provides the linguistic origins from which a word came.

But, unfortunately neither etymology nor definition help when someone can't understand them.

The definition of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience is clear - or at least should be. But, it isnt; so I provided the etymology so that one would know how the word evolved in meaning to its (apparent) bastardized form.

It is clear that people chop up, and bastardized words for their own profit and preference. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a paradigm of "my truth," for example, being taken as TRUTH.

Truth, like OMNIPOTENCE, is an ABSOLUTE. There is no such thing as "my truth," and there is no such thing as a lacking omnipotent entity.

 

[-V-]

The definition of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience is clear - or at least should be. But, it isnt; so I provided the etymology so that one would know how the word evolved in meaning to its (apparent) bastardized form.

It is clear that people chop up, and bastardized words for their own profit and preference. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a paradigm of "my truth," for example, being taken as TRUTH.

Truth, like OMNIPOTENCE, is an ABSOLUTE. There is no such thing as "my truth," and there is no such thing as a lacking omnipotent entity.

I know, right?

HOW DARE WE USE DICTIONARIES TO DETERMINE WHAT A WORD MEANS!! WHAT ARROGANCE!!!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The definition of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience is clear - or at least should be.

Your definitions are clear, to you. Which means nothing when talking to other people.

If I define omnipotence as, in part, the ability to make a square circle, and then declare that "god X" can't exist because omnipotence can't exist and "god X" is necessarily omnipotent, I'm going to be seen as a fool to people that have a different definition of omnipotence.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I know, right?

HOW DARE WE USE DICTIONARIES TO DETERMINE WHAT A WORD MEANS!! WHAT ARROGENCE!!!

You are still having trouble with the definition of omnipotence. You can't be arrogant if you don't know something; that is just called foolishness.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Your definitions are clear, to you. Which means nothing when talking to other people.

If I define omnipotence as, in part, the ability to make a square circle, and then declare that "god X" can't exist because omnipotence can't exist and "god X" is necessarily omnipotent, I'm going to be seen as a fool to people that have a different definition of omnipotence.

"My truth."

Exactly.

And, you can square a circle. In fact, a square is homeomorphic to a circle.

The fact that your God can't square a circle is a testament of your limits you place on it, or its weakness. That isn't omnipotence, that is a scale of omnipotence.

 

[-V-]

You are still having trouble with the definition of omnipotence.

According to you, sure. According to the dictionary, nope.

 

[-V-]

The fact that your God can't square a circle is a testament of your limits you place on it

Yes, I limit my God to not being absurd and imaginary like your God.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

"My truth."

Exactly.

I didn't say anything about truth. Definitions of words aren't objective truth.

And, you can square a circle. In fact, a square is homeomorphic to a circle.

No, I'm talking about a "square circle". Something that's both a square and a circle at the same time. It's shorthand for a contradictory thing. Live a "married bachelor".

The fact that your God can't square a circle is a testament of your limits you place on it, or its weakness. That isn't omnipotence, that is a scale of omnipotence.

I don't have a god. I'm an atheist. I just hate the misuse of language...

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I didn't say anything about truth. Definitions of words aren't objective truth.



No, I'm talking about a "square circle". Something that's both a square and a circle at the same time. It's shorthand for a contradictory thing. Live a "married bachelor".



I don't have a god. I'm an atheist. I just hate the misuse of language...

Whatever you say.

Except, in topology, a square and a circle are the exact same thing.

This is the limitation I am talking about that you put on your god. My God can square a circle because I can square a circle using a homeomorphism. I can even prove my squared is circle, and vice versa, with mathematics.

But, if it helps your walk to limit your God and further anthropomorphize it, then by all means have at it.

My God actually states His power on several occasions. So, it is very clear what my God is capable of.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

It isn't a big deal if you worship a god that is not omnipotent, or omni anything. If that is who you have faith in, then own it.

But, don't try to attach The Most High and His attribute to the inadequacies of your gods. He has explicitly told His power - and, "it ain't lackin'."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Except, in topology, a square and a circle are the exact same thing.

I do not care. Like I already said, "square circle" is shorthand for something contradictory.

This is the limitation I am talking about that you put on your god. My God can square a circle because I can square a circle using a homeomorphism. I can even prove my squared is circle, and vice versa, with mathematics.

Are you actually reading what I'm writing?

Ok, forget the square circle.

Your god can not make a "married bachelor", such that both definitions apply at the same time.

But, if it helps your walk to limit your God and further anthropomorphize it, then by all means have at it.

Now I know you're not reading what I write.

I'm an atheist.

No god here.

 

[-V-]

Except, in topology, a square and a circle are the exact same thing.

But the shape of the square and the shape of the circle don't coexist at the same time. They're "equivalent" because the circle can be ALTERED into a square, the square can be ALTERED into a circle. So, while "equivalent", the "square circle" still doesn't exist in topology.

 

[Ron Gurley]

These are the NAMES of "GOD" in the Bible which refect His "meaning" and nature.

A. Jehovah = ~YHWH = ~" I AM WHO I AM " = ~LORD = ~GOD = Self Existent
(e.g. Exodus 3:14; John 8:58; Hebrews 1:8)

B. Elohim = plural name: majestic and strong = (e.g. Genesis 1:26...Then God said,
"Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness..."

C. Adonai = ~LORD = ~Master = (e.g. Gen 2:4 ...the LORD God made the earth and the heavens;
John 13:13 "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.
Matthew 22:44 " 'The LORD said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."

D. "El" = ~GOD = Compound names, showing characteristics

1. El Elyon = most high = strongest
2. El Roi = strong see-er
3. El Shaddai = Almighty God
4. El Olam = Everlasting God

D. "Jehovah (J.) " = ~GOD = Compound names, showing characteristics

1. J. Jireh = LORD will provide
2. J. Nissi = LORD my banner
3. J. Shalom = LORD is peace
4. J. Sabbaoth = LORD of hosts
5. J. Maccaddeshcem = LORD your sanctifier
6. J. Raah = LORD my shepherd
7. J. Tsidkenu = LORD our righteousness
8. J. El Gmolah = LORD GOD of recompense
9. J. Nakeh = LORD who smites
10. J. Shammah = LORD who is present

These are the ATTRIBUTES and CHARACTER of "GOD" in the Bible which refect His "meaning" and nature.

1. Existent
2. Unified
3. Simple...Holy...Righteous...perfectly Good...pure
4. Infinite
5. Eternal
6. Unchanging and unchangeable CHARACTER
7. All Present
8. All Sovereign
9. All Knowing
10. All powerful
11. Perfectly JUST
12. Perfectly LOVING / Merciful
13. Perfectly TRUE / Truthful
14. Perfectly FREE
15. Perfectly separate

By spiritually discerning Scripture, three spiritual Persons...a TRI-UNE GOD... were revealed.
Each had different NAMES, titles, roles, ranks, functions, etc. Yet there was ONE "GOD" unified in spiritual essence, nature, and pre-existence.
They became known by the early "church" fathers and through spirit-led revelation as:
1. God the Father: associated with NAMES above, Creative Father, Loving Father, "our Father"
2. God the Holy Spirit: named the Spirit of Truth, enpowering and dwelling with the spirit of Man
3. God the Son: Jesus of Nazareth, Divine Messiah, THE Christ, Son of God, Son of Man, ETC
with a DUAL NATURE:
1. True perfect and sinless Man / New Adam...flesh of Man
2. True Diety sent down / come down from heaven to save Man

Mattthew 3: 16-17: The Beginning of Jesus' Ministry
As soon as Jesus (God the Son) was baptized (symbol for washing), he went up out of the water.
At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God (God the Holy Spirit)
descending like (in the form of) a dove and lighting on him.And a voice (God the Father) from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

John 15:26 (NIV)...a new promise by Jesus...a snapshot of the TRI-UNE God
"When the Counselor (God the Holy Spirit) comes,
whom I (God the Son/Jesus) will send to you from the Father (God the Father),
the Spirit of TRUTH (God the Holy Spirit) who goes out from the Father (God the Father),
he (the Spirit of TRUTH) will testify (to the spirit of Man) about me. (God the Son/Jesus)

Matthew 28: 18 - The End of the Ministry - Post Resurrection and Pre-Ascension... The Great Commisssion
Then Jesus came to them (disciples) and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Therefore a. go and b. make disciples of all nations, c. baptizing them (saved believers) in the name
of (God) the Father and
of (God) the Son and
of (God) the Holy Spirit,
and d. teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Colossians 2 :8-9;
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

Colossians 1 :15-19
For God was pleased to have all his fullness (of the Deity) dwell in Him,and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross

Phillipians 2...The Kenosis...Diety poured out into perfect flesh without loss or change in Deity

Romans 15:30 (NIV)...in prayer
I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ (God the Son/Jesus)
and by the love of the Spirit (God the Holy Spirit), to join me in my struggle
by praying to God (God the Father) for me.

2 Corinthians 13:14 (NIV)...in goodbyes
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ (God the Son/Jesus) ,
and the love of God (God the Father),
and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (God the Holy Spirit) be with you all.

 

[miknik5]

Your definitions are clear, to you. Which means nothing when talking to other people.

If I define omnipotence as, in part, the ability to make a square circle, and then declare that "god X" can't exist because omnipotence can't exist and "god X" is necessarily omnipotent, I'm going to be seen as a fool to people that have a different definition of omnipotence.

Your going to be seen as a liar and a deceiver

Omnipotent means what it means
And those lower than the one who is omnipotent actually have no power to say god x will do or won't do anything

 

[miknik5]

I do not care. Like I already said, "square circle" is shorthand for something contradictory.



Are you actually reading what I'm writing?

Ok, forget the square circle.

Your god can not make a "married bachelor", such that both definitions apply at the same time.



Now I know you're not reading what I write.

I'm an atheist.

No god here.

GOD can make a married bachelor
Ask those who belong to CHRIST how they can be a married bachelor

 

[variant]

Of course, by being all powerful you could get close to being all knowing, but not quite. By being all knowing you could get close to being all powerful, but not quite.

It is not possible to be both all knowing and all powerful.

If you were all knowing, you would know everything, even about the future. This means that you would know exactly what you are going to do way before you do it, and you know what other people are going to do. You cannot change what you or they are going to do otherwise you would not be all knowing since you would have got it wrong. Therefore to be all knowing, you can't be all powerful. If you were all powerful, you would be able to change your mind, meaning that you were wrong, and so you are not all knowing.

Incorrect. There is no reason to think that Gods experience Time like we do.

The idea that God would "change it's mind" is incoherent if it knows everything, has the power to do anything, and understands exactly what it (God) will think in the future.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Of course, by being all powerful you could get close to being all knowing, but not quite. By being all knowing you could get close to being all powerful, but not quite.

It is not possible to be both all knowing and all powerful.

If you were all knowing, you would know everything, even about the future. This means that you would know exactly what you are going to do way before you do it, and you know what other people are going to do. You cannot change what you or they are going to do otherwise you would not be all knowing since you would have got it wrong. Therefore to be all knowing, you can't be all powerful. If you were all powerful, you would be able to change your mind, meaning that you were wrong, and so you are not all knowing.

No, He can change what He is going to do. But as far as what is going to happen in this universe everything that is going to happen is part of His plan. So yes He can be both.